You still haven't addressed how you're gonna round up these illegal guns. Law abiding citizens will not give them up willingly. Then you turn millions of law abiders into criminals and that means agents will die in the process.

At least now you are trying to enter an adult discussion. More of the quoted and less of the garbage rhetoric I deleted, please.

To address your point. My first reaction is "You've created (and are still creating) ONE HELL OF A MESS! You clean it up" I'm very interested to see how that would/could possibly all work. Then again, Nobody said ANYTHING about an all-out ban and militant confiscation now did they?

To get to the point... it would have to be in this mind-frame:

'ALL guns' (in theory) are NOT illegal.

Using Canada as an example, you have to give and take and weigh the differences between *smart* gun law (public safety) and people's ability to own firearms (freedoms.. I suppose).

Guess what guys, you can still hunt in Canada. Yes, with a gun. Does that mean we should make sure we're arming everybody with all types of dangerous weapons, pistols, extended mags etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?

No.

It should be very hard to obtain something proven to be so dangerous. Just like poison or hazardous material, just like bomb-making material. Just like anything that has the potential to compromise public safety. You don't make it easy as easy as possible to get this stuff, you make it difficult, or at least control it, so it can be managed.

To address your point. My first reaction is "You've created (and are still creating) ONE HELL OF A MESS! You clean it up" I'm very interested to see how that would/could possibly all work. Then again, Nobody said ANYTHING about an all-out ban and militant confiscation now did they?

To get to the point... it would have to be in this mind-frame:

'ALL guns' (in theory) are NOT illegal.

Using Canada as an example, you have to give and take and weigh the differences between *smart* gun law (public safety) and people's ability to own firearms (freedoms.. I suppose).

Guess what guys, you can still hunt in Canada. Yes, with a gun. Does that mean we should make sure we're arming everybody with all types of dangerous weapons, pistols, extended mags etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?

No.

It should be very hard to obtain something proven to be so dangerous. Just like poison or hazardous material, just like bomb-making material. Just like anything that has the potential to compromise public safety. You don't make it easy as easy as possible to get this stuff, you make it difficult, or at least control it, so it can be managed.

This isn't some freak idea. This is common sense.

We've created a problem or a huge mess?

I don't agree.

Percentage of gun problems where I live is miniscule.

The problem is the culture not the guns. That is the reality.

Where I'm from you create a solution based on the root cause of any problem you don't go after the symptoms. Guns are not the root of the problems regarding gun violence.

You know who is buying up most of the guns? Law abiding citizens looking to protect themselves. And the bad guys and gals know that.

I work in a small office (12 people) and 2 others and myself carry. I am happy that the other 2 do.

You miss the point...responsible gun owners hate confrontation and violence. But they want to be able to defend themselves is there is no other way out.

And they end up being used in various crimes

By bad guys who are intent on doing harm....which is going to be the case even if they banned guns.

Let me ask you this, do you think there is a difference between a 'legal' gun and a 'responsible' gun owner? Or are they one in the same in your mind? If a gun is purchased legally does that mean it will never be used in a crime?

Can anybody provide the statistics that convey the percentage of guns used to commit a crime that were purchased legally?

Because in order for your argument to be valid, the number would have to be '0' (zero) correct?

I don't think I'm missing the point, I know exactly what you are saying. I'm not convinced you understand my point however.

However, IF strict prohibition of civilian gun ownership made the problem 1000x worse, then I would say yes, another method to address the problem is needed.

However, what if it made the problem 1000x better

You tried it your way, and millions of people have either been killed or affected by gun crime over the last couple decades. Which is called a failure. People are really suffering because of this policy. Ask a person who lost a loved one to gun violence. The problem is there are way to many of them.

So... maybe it's time to try another way, and it will either succeed or you will have to try something else.

What you have right now is not working, and the dismissing this is nothing more than denial.

The point is when you manufacture and distribute millions of guns it's nearly impossible to keep them in the hands of responsible gun owners...

And they end up being used in various crimes, and the occurrence of gun use and gun crime skyrockets.

Because you lean left, I will say: 'C'mon!'

Yes, it's impossible to make sure guns purchased legally don't get into the hands of criminals and irresponsible gun owners. But I'm a betting person and I'd say the bad folks would get their hands on illegal guns if the legal ones weren't available. I don't have stats and I don't think you do either.

Do you really think that people commit more crime because guns are more conveniently accessible?

Think about it....marijuana use. Do you really think legalizing it would cause a bunch of people to start using who normally don't use? I don't buy that at all. The people who use just wouldn't have to sneak around any more.

You really want you government to deny your legal right to carry a firearm when someone else could illegally carry one and hold up a convenience store where you may be shopping.....and walk into the back room where you may be hiding and murder your unprotected behind?

...Even if the Trayvon Martin case does not really illustrate the shortcomings of Florida’s law, it is possible that eliminating the duty to retreat in public places, combined with reinforcing the “castle doctrine” (which applies to home invasions) and extending it to vehicles, has encouraged avoidable escalations of violence. The law’s opponents note that the annual number of justifiable homicides in Florida (excluding police shootings) nearly tripled after the law was passed in 2005, from an average of 12 from 2000 to 2004 to an average of 35 from 2006 to 2010.

Still, you would expect to see an increase in homicides deemed to be justified even if the law were working as intended. The crucial question, which the task force appointed last week by Gov. Rick Scott presumably will ask, is whether these homicides should be deemed justified.

It is worth noting that Florida’s violent crime rate, which fell 12 percent in the five years before the “stand your ground” law was enacted, fell 23 percent in the five years afterward. Since 1987, when Florida adopted a nondiscretionary carry permit law that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence blames for “year after year of carnage,” the state’s violent crime rate has been cut nearly in half.

You tried it your way, and millions of people have either been killed or affected by gun crime over the last couple decades. Which is called a failure. People are really suffering because of this policy. Ask a person who lost a loved one to gun violence. The problem is there are way to many of them.

==============================

That, is the triumph of emotionalism over reason.

You have no facts to back these assertions.

You have no validity to these claims (note: Gun ownernship in America is the highest ever recorded. Note: crime is decreasing and homicide is no longer a top cause of death)

I say the problem is that people are idiots. They bang their fist on the hood of a car that comes close to them and shake it at the driver.....IDIOT. They get strangled by their husband and go out to their car, grab a gun, AND HEAD BACK INSIDE....IDIOT. They are told by the cops to stop following a person, yet they do anyways and get in a scuffle....IDIOT.

So because these people were STUPID, I lose my right to carry a gun? Not on your life.

If you take away these types of killings (the seat of the pants reaction, an incident that escalates because someone feels "disrespected"), the murder rate would be in the basement. Since I know I'm not going to be party to that stupidity, I'd like to keep my right to carry a gun. If the stupid people can't be....well.....less stupid, then they can face the consequences. I know I won't be one of those. And if you're smart, you won't either. So why fret so much?

I say the problem is that people are idiots. They bang their fist on the hood of a car that comes close to them and shake it at the driver.....IDIOT. They get strangled by their husband and go out to their car, grab a gun, AND HEAD BACK INSIDE....IDIOT. They are told by the cops to stop following a person, yet they do anyways and get in a scuffle....IDIOT.

So because these people were STUPID, I lose my right to carry a gun? Not on your life.

If you take away these types of killings (the seat of the pants reaction, an incident that escalates because someone feels "disrespected"), the murder rate would be in the basement. Since I know I'm not going to be party to that stupidity, I'd like to keep my right to carry a gun. If the stupid people can't be....well.....less stupid, then they can face the consequences. I know I won't be one of those. And if you're smart, you won't either. So why fret so much?

Activities offered by advertising links to other sites may be deemed an illegal activity in certain jurisdictions. Viewers are specifically warned that they should inquire into the legality of participating in any games and/or activities offered by such other sites. The owner of this website assumes no responsibility for the actions by and makes no representation or endorsement of any of these games and/or activities offered by the advertiser. As a condition of viewing this website viewers agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from the viewer’s participation in any of the games and/or activities offered by the advertiser.